Following the UN Lead? NATO’s Contested Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Policy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) has been a high-profile issue in United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations due to well-publicized scandals, which precipitated the development of policy and training. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) by contrast only adopted its first SEA policy in 2019, lagging behind UN policy initiatives. Nested within NATO’s Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) programme of work, this article focuses on explaining the emergence of NATO’s SEA Policy. Drawing from a feminist institutionalist lens, we argue that civilian and military officials within NATO were able to overcome apparent contestation to achieve its adoption by navigating NATO’s internal processes strategically. Our original empirical analysis uncovers key strategies employed by WPS officials which served to overcome institutional resistance to the SEA Policy. Drawing on our analysis of interviews and training materials, we also offer new insights on how NATO’s SEA Policy and training were designed to address underlying attitudes and beliefs that are conducive to the perpetration of SEA in military operations. The article concludes with the policy implications of our study to strengthen NATO’s SEA Policy architecture and related trainings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it